It would help the credibility of the argument is they didn’t use odd definitions, such as for Zionism, stating in quotation marks, “the movement trying to find ways to protect jews from racism,” but Merriam-Webster defines it as “an international movement originally for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel.” Though the movement was in reaction to anti-Semitism, it had a nationalist objective in the Land of Israel.

When showing the number of deaths by governments, they show the number of deaths in China since the Communist Revolution, but today’s China does not have the same ideological extremism as in earlier days.

Nevertheless, it is wrong to equate Zionism with racism, or to say that Israel is a racist state, though continued encroachments into the West Bank continue to create more bitterness. Whatever the problems of the occupation, only recognition of the legitimate concerns of all parties will lead to a just resolution.

If the US breaks their collar to the UN, a bunch of other nations would leave as well. Literally crippling the UN’s ability to have any credence simultaneously. It would just be a bunch of Muslim and Communist nations voting together, 99%, and that’s real easy to see.

That’s why people on the Left want the US to stay connected with the UN. It helps spread evil, yet put the blame on us, not on the Left. Or their Islamic allies.

Don Quixote: It’s not like we need another reason to get rid of the United Nations, but . . .

The U.N. provides a forum for nations to hash out their differences, and such resolutions have no legally punitive effect. People have a right to speak their minds. Pretending that Israel doesn’t have problems with other nations won’t make those problems go away.

For better or worse, the U.S. created the international system, benefits greatly from the international system, and humanity has avoided the scourge of another world war. Please note that Israel remains an active member of the United Nations.

The only reason to even consider staying in the UN is encapsulated in the phrase “keep you friends close and your enemies closer.” The UN is nothing more than the mouthpiece, and often active arm, of anti-Americanism around the world. I’d withdraw, but if we do remain, I would not give it a penny of funding. Why pay your enemies to oppose you?

The objective of Zionism was to create a state in which Jews could be safe as, perhaps, the only way to protect Jews from racism. The definition is incomplete, but not really that far off, Zach.

“Whatever the problems of the occupation, only recognition of the legitimate concerns of all parties will lead to a just resolution.” Sure, Zach, and when exactly are the Palestinians going to recognize Israel’s legitimate right to exist? Get them to do that and then we can talk.

The international Leftist cares more about their own bank accounts and luxuries than any sort of world peace.

They say that people have a “right” to things because they themselves plan to use totalitarian power to take away everybody else’s right to anything the Left deems anathema to their Religious Theocracy and Orthodoxy.

Those who support the UN are the most rabid anti-Americans around. Those who support the UN because American power forces them to, are pragmatists. And those who truly care about human rights have long since figured out the US military does far more of that than the UN ever did or ever will.

Charles Martel

I don’t think that any rational person can mount a strong defense of a collection of Jew-hating kleptocracies whose soldiers love to diddle children.

If it’s so important to know what the world is supposedly thinking, as represented by the UN, all we need to do is subsrcibe to the UN’s news feeds and keep up that way. Or, better yet, we can read all about it in the New York Times, the best damned newspaper in the world!

SADIE

Zionism is derived from the word Zion, another name for Jerusalem.

Merriam-Webster is not the source for a proper definition and the UN is as about as helpful as t*ts on a bull.

Israel is the only one of the 185 member countries ineligible to serve on the United Nations Security Council, the key deliberative group of the world body. Even Iraq is eligible. So is Iran. And so, too, are Cuba, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria.

There is no, none, nada and zip difference between Zion, Zionism and Jerusalem. Jerusalem is Israel and Israel is Jerusalem. The Jews of Judeah and Sumaria never left on their own volition.

It is like inhaling and exhaling – without both there is death.

p.s. Jew are not a race other than in a race to save their existence.

“That is incorrect”

…and you have the audacity to send me a link that is SIX years old. Exactly, what has changed in the past SIX years. Tell me, where is that formal application? Status? Of the 185 members, how many are democracies? Is it a majority?

SADIE: There is no, none, nada and zip difference between Zion, Zionism and Jerusalem.

Which is why the definition of Zionism includes reference to the Land of Israel. The video redefined the word to suit its argument. SADIE: Exactly, what has changed in the past SIX years. Tell me, where is that formal application? Status?

The claim was that Israel was “ineligible” for a seat on the Security Council. That is incorrect. They just haven’t been able to garner the necessary support. Neither could Canada, which probably lost its bid because of its strong support for Israel. That doesn’t make it fair or right, but it’s not because Israel is “ineligible”. SADIE: Of the 185 members, how many are democracies? Is it a majority?

According to Freedom House, there are 116 electoral democracies, three less than the previous year. Freedom in the World 2010: Global Erosion of Freedom, Freedom House 2010.

Sadie, have you noticed Z is no longer responding to my comments? Why is that, do you think, when he wants to talk with you?

Supporters of evil empires cannot be convinced their empire is evil.

SADIE

ineligible – is that a legal status or…

..is it being used as an adjective by the UN: cast out, disallowed, disapproved, disqualified, eliminated, excluded, improper, inadmissible, inappropriate.

p.s. nothing in the video about Canada. Stay on topic. Stop playing semantics. Stand up be a man – take position. Is it right or wrong that Israel has been excluded? There are two choices here: Yes or No.
Failure to answer in plain speak (Yes or No) precludes, ends and dissolves any further give and take on the topic.

SADIE: There are two choices here: Yes or No. Failure to answer in plain speak (Yes or No) precludes, ends and dissolves any further give and take on the topic.

Gee whiz, SADIE. We’ve tried to explain the distinction between being ineligible and simply not having support, yet you ask a question which encompasses the confusion while demanding an unambiguous answer.

SADIE: Is it right or wrong that Israel has been excluded?

Israel is not excluded from a seat on the Security Council, contrary to what you stated above. You have yet to correct or retract that statement.

It is unfortunate that Israel is considered a pariah by so many countries, unfairly so.

SADIE

With apologies to T.S. Elliot

This is the way the conversation ends This is the way the conversation ends Not with a bang but due to a whimper.

Writing this blog is a labor of love. However, if you'd like to donate money for my efforts, please feel free to do so: